Well, if he pushes and wins, or loses, he might have to expend a lot of political capital. He had a huge amount of it in 2008 and spent almost all of it on one single issue: healthcare. And it cost him and the party a lot.

There are several big item fights that he has to gear up for: the budget/taxes and immigration being two massive ones that MUST get done. Now if you add gun control, it makes it very tough. Does it he want to use his arm twisting and pressuring on this issue - or something else? He doesn't have the political capital to bullrush on all the major issues - you alienate a lot of people each time you push through a controversial bill.

Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis

Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball

Still holding out hope for a $20 flat carbon tax as a broad-scale revenue measure, which seems to have been getting some airtime lately. Not only because it would more than halve the deficit within the decade, but it would be the most glorious troll in history.

I have read from various sources that their clout is overrated, and that they had very little influence during the 2012 election.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

So in the late 1960s, Congress passed the Gun Control Act. NRA really got going after that. It was looking for a while that we would end up with extremely strict gun control laws.

In 1986, they Firearms Owners Protection Act - which really pulled a lot of teeth from the Gun Control Act.

They had some defeats in the 90s - with several gun control laws passed including the assault weapons ban.

In 2004, despite George Bush saying he would extend it, they launched a massive lobbying campaign and the law lapsed.

Next year, they passed a law that stops people who make and sell guns from being sued if someone uses their weapons. After that, they passed law making sure the government can't take your guns away during a natural disaster. You can now carry guns in American national parks - this law was passed despite massive democrat majorities in both houses AND President Obama in office (he didn't want to take on the NRA because it would endanger his credit card reforms).

Not one gun control legislation has passed Congress since the 90s, including when Democrats had almost 60 senators and a huge majority in the House.

However, to see the real changes, you have to look locally - as I said they are different than other lobbies because they have support of a lot of average people, which means they can be local, and vocal, in their lobbying. They can mobilize their members and go door to door in addition to flooding the town with ads. Politicians don't like ads against them, but what they like even less is people in their constituency (not protesters bussed in from other places) demonstrating by the hundreds against them and giving free press to the opposition.

Check this out. In 1986, only 9 states had laws that issued concealed carry licences on a 'no restriction' or 'shall issue' basis. No restriction means obviously no licence needed and shall issue would be that there would only be a few specific instances where it could be denied and the local authorities had no say in who couldn't. 16 states had NO laws granting an ability to carry a concealed weapon.

Fast forward right now: 41 states have 'no restriction' or 'shall issue basis'.

Yup, you went from 9 states to 41 states which pretty much have unlimited concealed carry laws. And the 16 which prohibited it completely? That's down to 1. That's right. 1.

There used to be a serious conversation about banning all handguns in the country. Now it's doubtful if even a semi-automatic assault rifle can be banned.

If you don't call that dominating the field, I don't know what qualifies.

Well, if he pushes and wins, or loses, he might have to expend a lot of political capital. He had a huge amount of it in 2008 and spent almost all of it on one single issue: healthcare. And it cost him and the party a lot.

There are several big item fights that he has to gear up for: the budget/taxes and immigration being two massive ones that MUST get done. Now if you add gun control, it makes it very tough. Does it he want to use his arm twisting and pressuring on this issue - or something else? He doesn't have the political capital to bullrush on all the major issues - you alienate a lot of people each time you push through a controversial bill.

I don't think he should touch gun control, personally. Nothing within the realms of possibility is likely to make the slightest bit of difference and will only serve to illustrate to the NRA that gun control doesn't work. Political capital should be expended where he can actually make a difference.

Originally Posted by indiaholic

Ireland on the other hand are everything that is good and just and beautiful in this world.

I gotta say, I'm really ****ing disappointing here. The Bush tax cuts for those making less than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) are now permanent. I was upset with the $250,000 number that Obama campaigned on, much less this number.

Obama also couldn't get Congress to do away with the debt ceiling so we'll have the same ****ing debate soon when we have to raise the debt ceiling. Not to mention, this deal does nothing about sequestering so we'll have fun in our hands to address that.

I know that Obama will say that he needed to "compromise" in order to prevent the fiscal cliff dive and ruin the economy. Bull****. He had all the leverage. He just won the election on a campaign of raising taxes. The Republicans had no leg to stand on. If they were being bullish, then Obama should've let the fiscal cliff happen. That way, we would've gone back to across the board tax increases to Clinton era levels. And if people get upset with that, they were going to blame the Republicans, as they rightly should.

Hell, even Grover Norquist is happy with this deal! That speaks volumes.